Shivaji Mahajan v. The Chairman Chamber Allotment Committee And ORS

$~60 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 8857/2011 SHIVAJI MAHAJAN ..... Petitioner Through Mr Puneet Saini, Advocate.

versus THE CHAIRMAN CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr Saurabh Chaddha, Advocate for R1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 22.09.2017 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the final list of allotment of lawyer's chambers, issued by respondent no.1 on dated 17.03.2010.

2.

The petitioner's grievance is regarding the allotment of Chambers Constructed at the District Court Complex, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, New Delhi.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 referred to the affidavit filed by the District & Sessions Judge and drew the attention of the Court to the third and fourth paragraph of the affidavit, which are set out below :- "3. That in the present, though the name of the petitioner was incorporated in the list of applicants (1092) but his case was rejected on the ground that he had already the chamber at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Lists of applicants/advocates were sent to the Shahdara Bar Association for verification/providing

information with respect to date of joining, membership of the Bar etc. The Bar informed back in respect of the petitioner that "CHAMEBR HOLDER CIVIL SUPPLY BUILDING 27 TIS HAZARI" (Annexure 'B'). The petitioner's name was not mentioned in the selection list for allotment of chamber since as per the information supplied by the Shahdara Bar Association as petitioner's was already a chamber holder and falls under the ineligibility criteria "Self/Relation having a chamber or chamber is being Given to relation."

4.

From the records filed by the Petitioner, it is evident that chamber at Civil Supply Building was allotted to the Petitioner and it was re-allotted to Respondent No.4 only on 22.09.2009. The affidavit to this effect is also signed in 2009. The complete correspondence is upto 2009 this is much after the Petitioner applied for the chamber. Annexure-P2 is a self created document having no authenticity. As submitted in earlier paragraph allotment to Respondent No.4 is much after applying for the chamber."

4.

In view of the above, the petitioner's grievance would be untenable. 5.

It is also seen that the Division Bench of this Court in Karan Singh Kardam v. Chamber Allottment Committee & Ors. : W.P. (C) 2819/2012 decided on 10.10.2013 had held that the seniority list upto 980 shall be treated as exhausted and further a separate senior list of the left over cases including fresh members inducted would be drawn up. It is pointed out that in the present case, the petitioner is claiming a seniority position at 116 (as per the list dated 12.10.2009).

6.

Since, it is apparent that the seniority list up to 980 has already been exhausted, no relief could be granted to the petitioner even if the petitioner

had made out a case for the same. This Court is also informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue regarding further seniority list is being considered by the concerned committee.

7.

In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 pkv